Related
First of all: I'm an OSS advocate and love the idea of open source. Don't forget that while reading this.
Some 2 month ago, I got myself a Galaxy S. It's not exactly cheap, but on the other side, it's really good hardware. This thread is not about Samsung or the Galaxy S. It's about the missing parts of android security.
We all know it from our home computers: Software sometimes has bugs. Some just annoy us, others are potentially dangerous for our beloved data. Our data sometimes gets stolen or deleted due to viruses. Viruses enter our machines by exploiting bugs that allow for code execution or priviledge escalation. To stay patched, we regularly execute our "apt-get update;apt-get dist-upgrade" or use windows update. We do this to close security holes on our systems.
In the PC world, the software and OS manufacturers release security bulletins to inform users of potentially dangerous issues. They say how to work around them or provide a patch.
How do we stay informed about issues and keep our Android devices updated?
Here's what Google says:
We will publicly announce security bugs when the fixes are available via postings to the android-security-announce group on Google Groups.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source: http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/faq/security.html#informed
OK, that particular group is empty (except for a welcome post). Maybe there are no bugs in Android. Go check yourself and google a bit - they do exist.
"So why doesn't Google tell us?", you ask. I don't know. What I know is that the various components of Android (WebKit, kernel, ...) do have bugs. There's nothing wrong with that BTW, software is made by people - and people make mistakes and write buggy code all the time. Just read the changelogs or release notes.
"Wait", I head you say, "there are no changelogs or release notes for Android releases".
Oh - so let's sum up what we need to stay informed about security issues, bugs and workarounds:
* Security bulletins and
* Patches or Workaround information
What of these do we have? Right, nada, zilch, rien.
I'll leave it up to you to decide if that's good common practise.
"But why is this important anyway", you ask.
Well, remember my example above. You visit a website and suddenly find all your stored passwords floating around on the internet. Don't tell me that's not possible, there was a WebKit bug in 2.2 that did just that. Another scenario would be a drive-by download that breaks out of the sandbox and makes expensive phone calls. Or orders subscriptions for monthly new ringtones, raising your bill by orders of magnitute. Or shares your music on illegal download portals (shh, don't tell the RIAA that this is remotely possible).
The bug is probably fixed in 2.2.1 - but without changelogs we can't be sure.
But that's not all - there's a second problem. Not only are we unaware of security issues, we also don't have automated update mechanisms.
We only receive updates when our phone's manufacturers release new firmware. Sadly, not all manufacturers support their phones in the long run.
In the PC world, most Distros have a central package management - that Google forgot to implement in Android. Agreed, some phones can receive OTA updates, but that depends on the carrier. And because of the differences in Android versions it's not possible to have a central patch management either. So we do not know if our Android devices might have security issues. We also have no easy way to patch them.
Perhaps you knew this before, then I apologize for taking your time.
What do YOU - the computer literate and security aware XDA users - think about this? Do you think that's a problem? Or would you rather say that these are minor problems?
Very intresting, thanks! The update problem should be fixed with the next release, no more custom UIs and mods from phone manufacturers,at least google said that
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App
Excellent post and quite agree with you. The other significant problem looming is the granularity (or rather, lack thereof) in app permissions which can cause problems you describe without bugs and exploits. I install an app that does something interesting with contacts and also has internet access to display ads. How do I know that my contacts are not encrypted, so making sniffing useless, and beamed back to mummy? Nothing other than blind trust!
I love Android but it's an accident waiting to happen unless the kind of changes you advocate are implemented and granularity of permissions significantly increased. I don't like much about Apple but their walled garden app store is something they did get right although IMHO, they also abuse that power to stifle competition. Bring out the feds!
simonta said:
The other significant problem looming is the granularity (or rather, lack thereof) in app permissions [...]
How do I know that my contacts are not encrypted, so making sniffing useless, and beamed back to mummy? Nothing other than blind trust!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, although I'm not sure that less experienced users might have difficulties with such options.
simonta said:
I love Android but it's an accident waiting to happen
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sad but true. I'm just curious what Google will do when the first problems arise and the first users will have groundshaking bills.
If that happens to just a few users, it'll get a kind media coverage Google surely won't like.
I've seen quite a few android exploits posted on bugtraq over the years. It's a high-volume email list, but with some filtering of stuff you don't care about, it becomes manageable. It's been around forever and is a good resource if you want the latest security news on just about anything computer related.
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/description
People are bashing a lot about the Android security model but the truth is you can never have 100% protection with ANY solution.
Apple is not allowing any app in their store. Fine. but mostly they are only filtering out apps that crash, violate some rules or they just don't like them or whatever. but they can never tell what an app is really doing. Therefore they would neeed to reverse-engineer every app they get etc. That's just impossible considering the amount of apps....
Speaking again of Android. I think the permission model is not bad. I mean, no other OS got such detailed description about what an app can do or not. But unfortunately it can only filter out very conspicuous apps, i.e. a Reversi game asking for your location and internet access. But then you never know... if the app is using ads it requires location and internet access, right? so what can you do?
RAMMANN said:
Apple is not allowing any app in their store. Fine. but mostly they are only filtering out apps that crash, violate some rules or they just don't like them or whatever. but they can never tell what an app is really doing. Therefore they would neeed to reverse-engineer every app they get etc. That's just impossible considering the amount of apps....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really, they do blackbox testing and let the apps run on emulated devices they then check if the app "behaves" as desired...
Of course you can't get 100% security and I don't think that's what we're saying, but there is a lot you can do.
Take for example internet access which is the biggest worry I have. The only reason most apps request internet access is to support ads. I now have a choice to make, don't use the app or trust it. That simple, no other choice.
If I installed an app that serves ads but did not have internet access, then the only way that app can get information off my phone is to use exploits and I'm a lot more comfortable knowing that some miscreant needs to understand that than the current situation where some script kiddy can hoover up my contacts.
However, if internet access and ad serving were separate permissions, you could in one hit address, taking a wild guess, 90% of the risk from the wild west that is Marketplace. With a bit more design and work, it would be possible to get the risk down to manageable and acceptable levels (at least for me).
I absolutely agree with you on Apple, one of the main reasons that I chose a Desire instead of an iPhone, but the Android approach is too far the other way IMHO.
Just my tuppence, in a hopeless cause of imagining someone at Google paying attention and thinking you know what, it is an accident waiting to happen.
marty1976 said:
Not really, they do blackbox testing and let the apps run on emulated devices they then check if the app "behaves" as desired...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, so why did a tethering app once make it into the appstore?
Also I think there are many possibilities for an app to behave normal, and just start some bad activity after some time. Wait a couple months until the app is spread around and then bang. Or remotely launch some action initiated through push notifications etc.
If there is interest, then there is always a way....
simonta said:
However, if internet access and ad serving were separate permissions, you could in one hit address, taking a wild guess, 90% of the risk from the wild west that is Marketplace. With a bit more design and work, it would be possible to get the risk down to manageable and acceptable levels (at least for me).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that a seperate permission for ads would be a good thing.
But there are still many apps which need your location, contacts, internet access.... all the social media things nowadays. And this is where the whole thing will be going to so I think in the future it will be even harder to differenciate.
Getting back on topic: I just read that Windows 7 Phone will get updates and patches like desktop windows. That means patchday once a month plus when urgency is high...
simonta said:
However, if internet access and ad serving were separate permissions, you could in one hit address, taking a wild guess, 90% of the risk from the wild west that is Marketplace. With a bit more design and work, it would be possible to get the risk down to manageable and acceptable levels (at least for me).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But, how do you distinguish them? Today, (as a developer) I can use any ad-provider I want. In order to distinguish ads from general internet access, the OS would need one of:
A Google-defined ad interface, which stifles "creativity" in ad design. Developers would simply ignore it and do what they do now as soon as their preferred ad-provider didn't want to support the "official" ad system or provided some improvement by doing so.
An OS update to support every new ad-provider (yuck^2).
Every ad-provider would have to go through a Google whitelist that was looked up on the fly (increased traffic, and all ads are now "visible" to Google whether Google is involved in the transaction or not). This would also make ad-blocking apps harder to implement since Google's whitelisting API might not behave if the whitelist was unavailable. On the upside, it would make ad-blocking in custom ROMs be trivial.
Even if Google did one of these things, it still wouldn't provide any real increase in privacy or security. The "ad service" would still need to deliver a payload from the app to the service (in order to select ads) and another from the service to the app (the ad content). Such a mechanism could be trivially exploited to do anything that simple HTTP access could provide.
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/list
issues submitted are reviewed by google employed techs... they tell you if you messed up and caused the issue or if the issue will be fixed in a future release or whatever info they find.
probably not the best way to handle it but its better then nothing.
twztdwyz said:
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/list
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Knew that bug tracker, but the free tagging aka labels isn't the best idea IMHO.
You can't search for a specific release, for example...
twztdwyz said:
probably not the best way to handle it but its better then nothing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ack, but I think Google can do _much_ better...
Two more things to have in mind:
1. I doubt that many Android users bother much about what permissions they give to an app.
2. Using Google to sync your contacts and calendar (and who knows what else), is a bad, bad idea.
Ok so I have another noob question. Do I need some kind of firewall and antivirus program on my tab? I mean I spent a ton protecting my laptops and desktops, so is the tab already somehow pretty well protected or do I need something?
And if so what do you recomend
Sent from my SCH-I800 using XDA App
Get Lookout from market, it's free. Thats what I use as a antivirus program. It has some other extra features with it too.
By default Android does not accept connections from the outside unless you tell it to.
So for a firewall, to stop applications from accessing the internet (wifi or 3G) you can try Droidwall. It doesn't work with ClockWorkMod though because of the older version of busybox built in to it. So if you are not using ClockWork for your recovery, it should work.
There are very few (only heard of one so far) viruses that have hit smartphones as of yet. But it is good to be prepared.
you do NOT need an antivirus for an android device as it is present... All those reports you see of viruses on android are done by the company MAKING the antivirus software
drksilenc said:
you do NOT need an antivirus for an android device as it is present... All those reports you see of viruses on android are done by the company MAKING the antivirus software
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What do you mean it is present? I didn't know android came with antivirus software. Yes, I have heard teh argument that antivirus software company are the ones making the viruses. But the fact is ( whatever the truth is) if you get hit with one, its still a pain. Since its free for now, go for it.
PS. Viruses has been on a decline though for computers and none made for smartphones yet. Lol maybe symanctec is had to cut cost and got rid of their programmers. I know Mcafee just got sold to Intel. Or maybe they are all waiting for the right time to release them when everyone's guard is down. Do I smell conspiracy Either eay, if the stuff on your phone is important, protect it.
You don't need one.
bpt888, drksilenc didn't mean the antivirus app makers were making viruses, he said that they were the only ones reporting on them.
What has been reported so far have not actually been viruses. It seems you have fallen into the trap those who make apps like lookout want people to fall into.
They report on things like, apps requesting device id's etc. You can see that an app will do this by looking at the permissions it asks for. eg, no need for an "antivirus" app.
If you actually read the "virus" reports from these companies, you'll see nothing is needed.
There are no viruses on Android.
None
Zero
Nil
Android anti-virus programs are a worthless waste. Actually less than worthless, as these useless programs just slow down your system for no benefit.
Android isn't Windows, it doesn't have holes the hackers can easily drive through.
If you concerned about your privacy install firewall (Droidwall for example) and tune its setting to block wallpaper or some other apps connecting to somebody you don't know.
Sometimes applications request internet access without good reason raising doubts in their purpose.
You will need to obtain root privileges to run firewall. Ironically this might lower your Tab protection against network intrusion. However, none of this is known threat unless you unknowingly install trojan and any other malware.
No virus software needed. Seriously it is a waste of time.
Sent from my SCH-I800 using XDA App
Geletis said:
Android isn't Windows, it doesn't have holes the hackers can easily drive through.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, but this is just FUD.
Windows is far more secure than most people give it credit for - it's just that it is the target for 99% of all attacks because it is so ubiquitous.
If and when Linux achieves some sort of relevance on the average consumer desktop, I'd expect to see a lot more attacks targeted its way and a corresponding increase in security issues.
Regards,
Dave
foxmeister said:
Sorry, but this is just FUD.
Windows is far more secure than most people give it credit for - it's just that it is the target for 99% of all attacks because it is so ubiquitous.
If and when Linux achieves some sort of relevance on the average consumer desktop, I'd expect to see a lot more attacks targeted its way and a corresponding increase in security issues.
Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, but surely the way that Linux (and Android) is made makes it inherently more secure? Without root access there's not much that can be done to truly compromise a Linux system, and Android sandboxes everything
TheGrammarFreak said:
I agree, but surely the way that Linux (and Android) is made makes it inherently more secure? Without root access there's not much that can be done to truly compromise a Linux system, and Android sandboxes everything
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree there's a certain degree of additional security provided by sandboxing, but we've already seen APKs (e.g. Z4Root) that can gain root access, so it's not infallible. It is one of the reasons that I use Chrome on all platforms - if you check out Pwn2Own, Chrome has yet to fail, and that it mostly due to sandboxing - however, it is not a panacea!
There is definitely an element of "security through obscurity" around non-Windows OS's. Note the use of the word "element" - I'm not saying that Linux or any other OS are insecure, just that they are attacked less than Windows.
The point is that modern Windows is far more secure than most people realise - any OS given the same amount of attention by the "bad guys" in comparison to others. Vulnerabilities exist in all OS's and will continue to found and exploited.
I'm in full agreement that currently the real security threats on Android are down to users not paying enough attention to the permissions that an app requests when it is installed, but this will likely change as Android gains popularity.
I do pay attention to the apps I install, so I personally don't feel the need for any kind of security suite on Android at present.
Regards,
Dave
Cool, thanks for your thoughts.
Sent from my Galaxy Tab
2.2.2 has a security fix
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/02/google-spikes-21-malicious-apps-from-the-market-with-big-downloa/
thoughts?
My thoughts are simple: Sprint needs to get its **** together and release an official 2.3 release. And Google needs to consider some sort of authentication program for apps to be distributed in the Market.
Certainly don't want to cut the independent developer community off, but it shouldn't be their responsibility to release new versions of essential operating software that contain fixes that disable malicious exploits. They are here to enhance our user experience.
The manufacturers need to be concerned about what the deleterious effects of outdated software can open their networks to. After all, these apps had full internet access, as I've heard. Who knows if, say a DDOS attack (or something worse), could be possible using phones, and what kind of effects that could have on the stability of the entire Sprint network.
As for Google, I'm not suggesting that the Market be completely walled-off, but maybe having something like "Google Approved" or "Verified Secure" or something, would give us users more confidence that apps come from verified and vetted sources. We could still install things not verified -- at our own risks -- but at least we'd have a choice and be able to proceed with better, more complete information.
TonyArmstrong said:
My thoughts are simple: Sprint needs to get its **** together and release an official 2.3 release. And Google needs to consider some sort of authentication program for apps to be distributed in the Market.
Certainly don't want to cut the independent developer community off, but it shouldn't be their responsibility to release new versions of essential operating software that contain fixes that disable malicious exploits. They are here to enhance our user experience.
The manufacturers need to be concerned about what the deleterious effects of outdated software can open their networks to. After all, these apps had full internet access, as I've heard. Who knows if, say a DDOS attack (or something worse), could be possible using phones, and what kind of effects that could have on the stability of the entire Sprint network.
As for Google, I'm not suggesting that the Market be completely walled-off, but maybe having something like "Google Approved" or "Verified Secure" or something, would give us users more confidence that apps come from verified and vetted sources. We could still install things not verified -- at our own risks -- but at least we'd have a choice and be able to proceed with better, more complete information.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 but i also think they should make an official malware scanner.
Rydah805 said:
+1 but i also think they should make an official malware scanner.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This.^^^^
I'm an Android convert (from iPhone), and my great fear is that the very openness we enjoy could expose us to very nasty ****. I don't wanna be locked down, but I do want some manner of enhanced security.
That malware scanner in combo with some sort of developer authentication and/or verification program would be excellent.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1453695
Why are you creating 2 topics about it?
Had you tested it? How it compare to theoretically best Zoner Antywirus? Tell us some more, than posting links - this is kind of flooding.
For me, this program won't beat Zoner.. for now.
Anyway, I'll test it
Rayman96 said:
Why are you creating 2 topics about it?
Had you tested it? How it compare to theoretically best Zoner Antywirus? Tell us some more, than posting links - this is kind of flooding.
For me, this program won't beat Zoner.. for now.
Anyway, I'll test it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sorry if i did hurt you. well i was a beta tester for the app. it did performed well for me, besides comodo is a reputed company after all and they are standing for free softwares.
I posted the links cause it contains all the details of the software, details about the company etc, i thought its better than i explain those details.
about double posting, the one i posted is in the general section is for all to see. The second is for my fellow lgp500 users, where i really belogs. i hope i am clear enough. no harm ment
Best free antivirus is your brain - never install app without good amount of comments about app.
AdvDretch said:
Best free antivirus is your brain - never install app without good amount of comments about app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who in this world has time to read all that? Have you ever tried to read Google’s conditions and policies while creating a Google account? Certainly the answer would be ‘NO’. Do you know that Google had 60 different policies that helped them to collect data from your personal Gmail and other Google apps? Now do you know that they had merged all these in to one policy?
Google will know more about you than your wife does. Everything across your screens will be integrated and tracked. Google noted that it collects information you provide, data from your usage, device information and location. Unique applications are also noted. Sure you can use Google’s dashboard and ad manager to cut things out, but this policy feels Big Brother-ish. Google is watching you as long as you are logged in. It’s also unclear whether this privacy policy move will be considered bundling in some way by regulators. This unified experience hook appears to be at least partially aimed at juicing Google+. Google responded with clarification: Google noted that it already has all that data, but it’s now integrating that information across products. It’s a change in how Google will use the data not what it collects. In other words, Google already knows more about you than your wife.( not my comment go read this.... http://m.zdnet.com/blog/btl/googles-new-privacy-policy-the-good-bad-scary/67893)
Now my question is whether Google is good or bad? Do you need Droidwall to defend your privacy? Or do you still believe in your Brain(better do not believe in brain but use it to think rationally)?
Conclusion: we need a new definition to “virus”...My contribution is Anything that steals your private data is a virus.( no flames needed, no harm meant...just my thought about the relevancy of protective apps like Droidwall, comodo, avg, etc. ...etc)
,do we realy need anti virus?,
algie17 said:
,do we realy need anti virus?,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You dont need one
Sent from my LG-P500 using XDA Premium App
josinpoul's mean run anti virus before creating Google account
And if too don't have anti virus then don't use Google. Josin your explanation is wrong. Brain and antivirus both useful.
No need for 2 topics about one thing but thanks for sharing!!!
http://ca.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idCATRE81N1T120120224
By Jim Finkle
BOSTON (Reuters) - Cybersecurity experts have uncovered a flaw in a component of the operating system of Google Inc's widely used Android smartphone that they say hackers can exploit to gain control of the devices.
Researchers at startup cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike said they have figured out how to use that bug to launch attacks and take control of some Android devices.
CrowdStrike, which will demonstrate its findings next week at a major computer security conference in San Francisco, said an attacker sends an email or text message that appears to be from a trusted source, like the user's phone carrier. The message urges the recipient to click on a link, which if done infects the device.
At that point, the hacker gains complete control of the phone, enabling him or her to eavesdrop on phone calls and monitor the location of the device, said Dmitri Alperovitch, chief technology officer and co-founder of CrowdStrike.
Google spokesman Jay Nancarrow declined comment on Crowdstrike's claim.
Alperovitch said the firm conducted the research to highlight how mobile devices are increasingly vulnerable to a type of attack widely carried out against PCs. In such instances, hackers find previously unknown vulnerabilities in software, then exploit those flaws with malicious software that is delivered via tainted links or attached documents.
He said smartphone users need to prepare for this type of attack, which typically cannot be identified or thwarted by mobile device security software.
"With modifications and perhaps use of different exploits, this attack will work on every smartphone device and represents the biggest security threat on those devices," said Alperovitch, who was vice president of threat research at McAfee Inc before he co-founded CrowdStrike. Researchers at CrowdStrike were not the first to identify such a threat, though such warnings are less common than reports of malicious applications that make their way to online websites, such as Apple's App Store or the Android Market.
In July 2009, researchers Charlie Miller and Collin Mulliner figured out a way to attack Apple's iPhone by sending malicious code embedded in text messages that was invisible to the phone's user. Apple repaired the bug in the software a few weeks after the pair warned it of the problem.
The method devised by CrowdStrike currently works on devices running Android 2.2, also known as Froyo. That version is installed on about 28 percent of all Android devices, according to a Google survey conducted over two weeks ending February 1.
Alperovitch said he expects to have a second version of the software finished by next week that can attack phones running Android 2.3. That version, widely known as Gingerbread, is installed on another 59 percent of all Android devices, according to Google.
CrowdStrike's method of attack makes use of a previously unpublicized security flaw in a piece of software known as webkit, which is built into the Android operating system's Web browser.
Webkit is also incorporated into other software programs, including Google's Chrome browser and the Apple iOS operating system for the iPhone and iPad.
CrowdStrike said it had not attempted to create software to attack iOS devices or the Chrome browser.
Ok, now a group of hackers control 500000000 devices... an antivirus will slow the phone down more than a hacker trying to run a phone from another continent over your 2G network... just think about it... how can your screen be monitored over 3G in real-time? It can't be done on my 5Mbps PC...
And if you turn data off, then 1GB of data will be sent to google when you turn it on??? Think logic...(where the f**k do you store that??? I think the effect will be noticed right away, and the attacker has no time to take control, unless you are stupid enough to see a 1GB file and not suspect anything...) PCs have real-time protection, but that is because there are terrible threats out there, and they are optimized, they don't slow down... on your phone, you will regret having a phone for 2 years running like **** and then dropping in water, while you could have best performance in those 2 years...
We are not windows, but we are android, and it is the most unsafe mobile OS, if you want a safe one, get from apple... just 2x price at ½ quality...
Sent from my LG-P500
well i use avast antivirus
but not for scanning viruses
but rather for anti-theft feature and firewall(blocking apps)
and isnt android a java based OS ??
im sure there are not many virus's
that can cause heavy damage
So I download this X-Ray vulnerability scanner app (it's legit) and scan my device. To my surprise, even my Nightly is vulnerable to the mempodroid exploit. Should this concern me enough to file a CM bug report? By the way I use Franco kernel so if this is a legit exploit should I consider contacting him? See original G+ thread. https://plus.google.com/117694138703493912164/posts/AfNQ7cT9JYV
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Mempodroid is a root exploit and considering that CM comes pre-rooted you shouldn't have anything to worry about
Sent from my NEXUS 4 using xda premium
Oh good. What a relief. So that means we have no known vulnerabilities. That's good. Take that Apple.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
MikeRL100 said:
Oh good. What a relief. So that means we have no known vulnerabilities. That's good. Take that Apple.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/152836-android-master-key-security-flaw-affects-900m-devices/
If people are worried about security they should not be rooting their devices to begin with.
Sorry if I'm offending
zelendel said:
If people are worried about security they should not be rooting their devices to begin with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry for disagreeing with you, but I worry about common sense security. If this is a root exploit that is needed to ship with CM to allow one to use root, no biggie. I know root makes you vulnerable, but guess what? So does administrative access on Windows. If I worked for the governemnt or a large business I would have a different, possibly non-smart phone to do that task. I'm not stupid enough to go downloading cracked apps from pirated sites, but let me tell you all something. On my PC I had Opera 14 installed and used it during when one of Opera's employee's PCs got hacked and injected the Opera certificates with malware. I freaked. Prooves that a targeted attac could be successful, even with good protection. Luckily, my layer of security (MVPS hosts, Avast, and Malwarebytes Pro) kept it from even approaching the front door. And my Linux box even has the MVPS hosts file as well. Also, if this was an actual vulnerability to be concerned about, Steve Kondik would've patched it before the iCrap loving media could get new anti-Google propaganda. By the way, I am arguing with none of you, but I do need to make a point. I know since Android is based of Linux and not Windows NT, it is hella more secure. I would not root this if this phone had to be used under secure conditions. I'd either disable root while at work, or get a second phone. Yes I love root that much. But I don't get malware very often, havent' had an actual infection that wasn't blocked in many many years. Never even had Android malware. You know why? Hosts file+common sense. I never go to pirated sites, and never will. I love the XDA devs, community, and even some of the non-XDA Google Play devs enough not too. And when I say love, I mean I don't want to see their income sapped. Piracy is a no-no on XDA, but I'm sure it's OK to condemn it. And my talk on that ends now. :good: So onto the main topic, I have common sense, some privacy protections, and I don't just allow any app superuser access. I check reviews first and even have a malware scanner in Advanced Mobile Care. No on demand protection since its not necessary for me, and I never have gotten malware. I bet jailbroken iOS devices get more malware since most of the apps on them are cracked since Apple boots you out of iTunes for jailbreaking. Also, even though I'm rooted I like to know what each exploit means. No device or computer (even a hardened Linux server) is safe from the most skilled black hat. But since I'm not a target of interest, I have some malware prevention via the HOSTS file, Android is more secure than Windows, and I most importantly have common sense, I'll be fine. Maybe I'm too lax on security, but I guarantee you, I will adapt if some freak drive by download trojan comes to Android and by some crazy way gets malware through the Play Store with reputable apps. If a nasty was detected, or an app just looked different enough, it ain't gonna get no system access from me. So go ahead you iOS loving "Android is the next Windows XP" malware magnet pundits in the media, go ahead (that i if any Apple trolls stumble across this thread). I guarantee none of the streams of infected botnets will not add another to the collection. Like I said, not arguing with you but I disagree with you (at least initially) on how powerful my common sense is. I'm not saying you're doubting me, you're a cool guy and more than likely give a lot of assistance around here, but I may look like a noob troll cause I am a Junior member, but I was a long time lurker, and on AndroidForums I have been around a bit. I'm not some sort of super brain (at least not yet) and I do know rooting hampers security, but although I care about security, I just don't want my precious Nexus 4 and 7 to ever become virus magnets. I should have mentioned it, but I thought that vulnerability in CM was because it needed an exploit to have root by defaul (even though CM has disabled it recently). Also I will take some blame myself if I offended any of you. I am paranoid about a lot of things. But it's good to be paranoid to a certain extent. That would explain the lack of malware on all of my computers. But I should pay less attention to the social networks. Even G+. If this was on Facebook, mind you all, I wouldn't have game a damn about it. Facebook is full of trolls, fanboys, and noobs. That's why I rarely use that site and when I do, I pretty much block off all access to my profile from strangers. G+ encourages sharing with new people, while Facebook is like being with your old clique of buddies. That's why I use G+ so much now. That and I can help idiiot test things for developers. :laugh:
scream4cheese said:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/152836-android-master-key-security-flaw-affects-900m-devices/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes you're definitely right we have a security issue. Not that Android itself is insecure (both my Nexus 4 and 7 were rushed to the latest Nightly to prevent them from joining a botnet) Good thing is custom ROMs create headaches for the bad guys cause they fragment Android (not in the iSheep style way of not getting updates) but in the way that they remove bloatware and some system apps, increase security in some areas, and in general all the code changes make it harder to create a universal botnet. I guarantee 95% of that botnet will be from OEM stock phones. We forget around here that most people are ignorant of common sense and security, if not downright stupid and don't care about security as long as they get their free cracked apps. We're the nerds here and most people are going to make it easy for these holes to be abused. They go to the most untrustworthy sites, install unstrustworthy apps, and are basically asking for it. Also the OEMs are pathetic for not all having a way to quickly patch Android. This type of stuff should sound an alarm to create a security update. I can see not giving an old phone a new version of Sense/touchwiz/Motoblur,etc. but denying security updates is ridiculous. The government should sue the offending OEMs if they want to be respected by the geeks a little more after the whole NSA mess. Because despite the fact that we aren't the ones here creating the botnet, what are we gonna do if thousands of clueless users install cracked apps that contain malware with the exploit, and form a botnet, that say DDOS attacks Google. Then Google Services would be disrupter. Also Google (who I am a big fan of) needs to stop being greedy in the one area of Android updates and force OEMs to include security patches and also backport and open source the security patch ASAP. I know CM is safe from that exploit already, I saw Steve Kondik's commit. But the OEMs are the problem. Google needs to push them past their comfort zone. You can have a car that is 10-20 years old and just because it's out of warranty doesn't mean that even if it takes a fool to make the engine explode in a deadly blast, that the manufacturer would just it there. I've seen Chevy recalls for example. One of them was a recall because something would catch fire if you were an idiot and poured gasoline or engine fluid or somehting on the engine. Of course the people doing this were stupid, but the same is true with technology. Why let the clueless and in the worst case those that just don't care create a botnet for us all to suffer from? Create an idiot patch and stop the situation from exploding. Please OEMs. Do something right for once.
MikeRL100 said:
Sorry for disagreeing with you, but I worry about common sense security. If this is a root exploit that is needed to ship with CM to allow one to use root, no biggie. I know root makes you vulnerable, but guess what? So does administrative access on Windows. If I worked for the governemnt or a large business I would have a different, possibly non-smart phone to do that task. I'm not stupid enough to go downloading cracked apps from pirated sites, but let me tell you all something. On my PC I had Opera 14 installed and used it during when one of Opera's employee's PCs got hacked and injected the Opera certificates with malware. I freaked. Prooves that a targeted attac could be successful, even with good protection. Luckily, my layer of security (MVPS hosts, Avast, and Malwarebytes Pro) kept it from even approaching the front door. And my Linux box even has the MVPS hosts file as well. Also, if this was an actual vulnerability to be concerned about, Steve Kondik would've patched it before the iCrap loving media could get new anti-Google propaganda. By the way, I am arguing with none of you, but I do need to make a point. I know since Android is based of Linux and not Windows NT, it is hella more secure. I would not root this if this phone had to be used under secure conditions. I'd either disable root while at work, or get a second phone. Yes I love root that much. But I don't get malware very often, havent' had an actual infection that wasn't blocked in many many years. Never even had Android malware. You know why? Hosts file+common sense. I never go to pirated sites, and never will. I love the XDA devs, community, and even some of the non-XDA Google Play devs enough not too. And when I say love, I mean I don't want to see their income sapped. Piracy is a no-no on XDA, but I'm sure it's OK to condemn it. And my talk on that ends now. :good: So onto the main topic, I have common sense, some privacy protections, and I don't just allow any app superuser access. I check reviews first and even have a malware scanner in Advanced Mobile Care. No on demand protection since its not necessary for me, and I never have gotten malware. I bet jailbroken iOS devices get more malware since most of the apps on them are cracked since Apple boots you out of iTunes for jailbreaking. Also, even though I'm rooted I like to know what each exploit means. No device or computer (even a hardened Linux server) is safe from the most skilled black hat. But since I'm not a target of interest, I have some malware prevention via the HOSTS file, Android is more secure than Windows, and I most importantly have common sense, I'll be fine. Maybe I'm too lax on security, but I guarantee you, I will adapt if some freak drive by download trojan comes to Android and by some crazy way gets malware through the Play Store with reputable apps. If a nasty was detected, or an app just looked different enough, it ain't gonna get no system access from me. So go ahead you iOS loving "Android is the next Windows XP" malware magnet pundits in the media, go ahead (that i if any Apple trolls stumble across this thread). I guarantee none of the streams of infected botnets will not add another to the collection. Like I said, not arguing with you but I disagree with you (at least initially) on how powerful my common sense is. I'm not saying you're doubting me, you're a cool guy and more than likely give a lot of assistance around here, but I may look like a noob troll cause I am a Junior member, but I was a long time lurker, and on AndroidForums I have been around a bit. I'm not some sort of super brain (at least not yet) and I do know rooting hampers security, but although I care about security, I just don't want my precious Nexus 4 and 7 to ever become virus magnets. I should have mentioned it, but I thought that vulnerability in CM was because it needed an exploit to have root by defaul (even though CM has disabled it recently). Also I will take some blame myself if I offended any of you. I am paranoid about a lot of things. But it's good to be paranoid to a certain extent. That would explain the lack of malware on all of my computers. But I should pay less attention to the social networks. Even G+. If this was on Facebook, mind you all, I wouldn't have game a damn about it. Facebook is full of trolls, fanboys, and noobs. That's why I rarely use that site and when I do, I pretty much block off all access to my profile from strangers. G+ encourages sharing with new people, while Facebook is like being with your old clique of buddies. That's why I use G+ so much now. That and I can help idiiot test things for developers. :laugh:
Yes you're definitely right we have a security issue. Not that Android itself is insecure (both my Nexus 4 and 7 were rushed to the latest Nightly to prevent them from joining a botnet) Good thing is custom ROMs create headaches for the bad guys cause they fragment Android (not in the iSheep style way of not getting updates) but in the way that they remove bloatware and some system apps, increase security in some areas, and in general all the code changes make it harder to create a universal botnet. I guarantee 95% of that botnet will be from OEM stock phones. We forget around here that most people are ignorant of common sense and security, if not downright stupid and don't care about security as long as they get their free cracked apps. We're the nerds here and most people are going to make it easy for these holes to be abused. They go to the most untrustworthy sites, install unstrustworthy apps, and are basically asking for it. Also the OEMs are pathetic for not all having a way to quickly patch Android. This type of stuff should sound an alarm to create a security update. I can see not giving an old phone a new version of Sense/touchwiz/Motoblur,etc. but denying security updates is ridiculous. The government should sue the offending OEMs if they want to be respected by the geeks a little more after the whole NSA mess. Because despite the fact that we aren't the ones here creating the botnet, what are we gonna do if thousands of clueless users install cracked apps that contain malware with the exploit, and form a botnet, that say DDOS attacks Google. Then Google Services would be disrupter. Also Google (who I am a big fan of) needs to stop being greedy in the one area of Android updates and force OEMs to include security patches and also backport and open source the security patch ASAP. I know CM is safe from that exploit already, I saw Steve Kondik's commit. But the OEMs are the problem. Google needs to push them past their comfort zone. You can have a car that is 10-20 years old and just because it's out of warranty doesn't mean that even if it takes a fool to make the engine explode in a deadly blast, that the manufacturer would just it there. I've seen Chevy recalls for example. One of them was a recall because something would catch fire if you were an idiot and poured gasoline or engine fluid or somehting on the engine. Of course the people doing this were stupid, but the same is true with technology. Why let the clueless and in the worst case those that just don't care create a botnet for us all to suffer from? Create an idiot patch and stop the situation from exploding. Please OEMs. Do something right for once.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh you have many valid points. My statement was more for the average user that really has no use for root. They root and flash cause they think it is cool.
The carriers and OEMs are trying to do something to stop it. The are locking bootloaders and making unrootable kernels (Samsung) To be honest I think this is a good idea for most users. They have no really need for those things and only end up with issues cause they have no idea what they are doing.
Cm Released a set of patches today to block some of the security issues.
See that is the issue with With OEM. Google cant force them to do anything. All the carrier has to do is take the AOSP code and add their stuff to it. No one can say what they have to add or not. This is why I only get nexus devices. I watched Euro devices get updated by the OEM while the US based devices never saw any updates at all. Including security updates that the OEM had issued. As long as the Carriers control what happens to the devices there is nothing that we can really do.
#Nexus4Lyfe I wish this was G+. I felt like a stupid hash tag would be appropriate.